Posted - 04/23/2014 : 23:04:10 The Suspension to Matt Cooke was not enough.

Allow me to summarize the Video Explanation given by the League:

"On Tuesday night Matt Cooke hit Tyson Barrie. This hit was determined to be kneeing. The knee was extended prior to impact. The play was in front of Cooke the whole time. Cooke had plenty of time to get out of the way. Cooke could have hit the player square on. The hit has been determined to be 'intent to injure'. The League also considered that Cooke is a repeat offender who has been fined or suspended a total of 9 previous times throughout his 15-year career.

To summarize:Knee-on-knee hitIntent to injureHistory with the League

We believe that the severity of this incident merits a significant suspension.

...We hereby suspend Matt Cooke of 7 games. "

How can it go from saying, "this offence merits a massive suspension", to "we're giving him 7 games" in the same sentence!?!? Is this a joke?

The League blew it on this one.

Does anybody disagree with that? How many games do you think Cooke should have gotten. What a piece of sh*t. I am extremely disappointed.

40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

Beans15

Posted - 06/10/2014 : 07:36:46 Bahahaha! Awesome.

Out of request for admin I will leave it at that. Until the next time...It shouldn't take long.

slozo

Posted - 06/10/2014 : 07:27:41

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

WHY DIDN'T THE UNION ASK FOR THE AUTOMATIC EXPULSION AND DEATH BY FIRING SQUAD FOR THIS GUY??

THEY AREN"T DOING THER JOB.

So this is your "facts"?Talk about throwing stones in a glass house . . . you are classic, dude. And your anger is really showing, man . . . this is a hockey talk website, it's not world politics. Seriously, it's not worth the grief., man.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!

admin

Posted - 06/09/2014 : 12:29:37 Slozo, Beans, let's take it down a notch fellas. Let's both stop throwing stones at each other and get the discussion back on track please.

Beans15

Posted - 06/09/2014 : 11:21:57 Oh, there it is! I was waiting for that. Still no factual counter-point. We are not talking about opinion, we are talking fact. When Slozo doesn't like the fact he attacks the person who makes the factual statement. It's hilarious. Again, the exact definition of dogmatic. Let's me cite Webster for those who won't look it up themselves.

Dogmatic: characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts.

Slozo has no fact to support his argument but he continues to make statements as it to be true. I am not saying I am smart, but in this case, I am correct. I am not ignoring anyone, I have responded to every post directed at me.

What's going to be the next ridiculous response?? I bet it will have something to do with a strawman, hey bub??

slozo

Posted - 06/09/2014 : 04:40:43

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Just stirring the pot.

Notice the silence from the normally un-silent minority?? I guess they ran of our stones to throw or did they just take their ball and go home.

I wish they would have stayed.

Stirring the pot on what? Did you say anything new lately on this? Or were you just repeating yourself over and over again, telling everyone how smart you are at ignoring what anyone else is saying?

I think it's the latter, bub.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!

markliso

Posted - 06/08/2014 : 10:58:40 The officials have their own union I thought

Beans15

Posted - 06/06/2014 : 11:03:10 Just stirring the pot.

Notice the silence from the normally un-silent minority?? I guess they ran of our stones to throw or did they just take their ball and go home.

I wish they would have stayed.

mandree888

Posted - 06/05/2014 : 10:25:19

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

WHY DIDN'T THE UNION ASK FOR THE AUTOMATIC EXPULSION AND DEATH BY FIRING SQUAD FOR THIS GUY??

THEY AREN"T DOING THER JOB.

??? are the officials part of the union??? lol or are you just stirring the pot?

Beans15

Posted - 06/05/2014 : 06:58:51 WHY DIDN'T THE UNION ASK FOR THE AUTOMATIC EXPULSION AND DEATH BY FIRING SQUAD FOR THIS GUY??

THEY AREN"T DOING THER JOB.

Alex116

Posted - 06/04/2014 : 06:28:26 I agree Mandree. He's changed it from abusive contact of an official to incidental contact in an attempt to free himself from the officials grasp. Almost like a loophole but a change that would piss me off if I were the linesman!

mandree888

Posted - 06/03/2014 : 13:01:55 SERIOUSLY BETTMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY WOULD YOU OVERTURN THAT!!!!! HE ELBOWED THE REF IN THE FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Talk about a stupid decision. this was disgusting and should have no room for in the game!

bettman you are in idiot

Beans15

Posted - 05/30/2014 : 11:47:09

quote:Originally posted by mandree888

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

And to my buddy Slozo's point, you are 100% correct, the union doesn't do much to protect injured players. That is the point of the argument. THEY CAN"T!!!! Their sole and exclusive purpose is to represent the worker against the employer. Period. End of story.

.

they can't even if the party requests it? according to the way you described the union that means the NHLPA could go after the wild for allowing this goonery to happen? or can Barrie only put in a grievance agains the avalanche for unsafe work environment?

all the wild would have to say is we don't agree with what he did but we are contractually obligated to keep him around? and that would be the end of it?

please feel free to politley correctly me if i have mis read what you meant.

Essentially Barrie CAN, IF he decides to put in a grievance to the NHLPA? But it wouldn't do anything at all to help him in anyway?that seems like an entirely BROKEN system.. rofl

again i just want to understand here because my knowledge of unions is being seriously tested here.

I think you have it part of the way right. Essentially, the NHLPA has the exclusive bargaining authority on behalf of the players with the NHL. Not the individual teams or players, the NHL.

Using this situation, Barrie could so choose to ask the PA to file a grievance with the NHL on his behalf claiming unsafe work environment or what ever. That engages the NHL to act or deny the grievance, at such time the grievance process would process through a number of steps. Each time the NHL could act to resolve the grievance or deny. Eventually, if the NHL continued to deny the grievance, an arbitrator or panel or arbitrators would rule for or again either the NHL or the PA.

That's how the system works.

Where the issue lies with the argument of Slozo and others is when they make statements as to why didn't the NHLPA do more to protect Barrie by penalizing Cooke. Simply put, they can not. The PA's authority is between the NHL and the NHLPA. It is the NHL's responsibility to manage the relationship between the players.

mandree888

Posted - 05/29/2014 : 12:58:24

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

And to my buddy Slozo's point, you are 100% correct, the union doesn't do much to protect injured players. That is the point of the argument. THEY CAN"T!!!! Their sole and exclusive purpose is to represent the worker against the employer. Period. End of story.

.

they can't even if the party requests it? according to the way you described the union that means the NHLPA could go after the wild for allowing this goonery to happen? or can Barrie only put in a grievance agains the avalanche for unsafe work environment?

all the wild would have to say is we don't agree with what he did but we are contractually obligated to keep him around? and that would be the end of it?

please feel free to politley correctly me if i have mis read what you meant.

Essentially Barrie CAN, IF he decides to put in a grievance to the NHLPA? But it wouldn't do anything at all to help him in anyway?that seems like an entirely BROKEN system.. rofl

again i just want to understand here because my knowledge of unions is being seriously tested here.

Beans15

Posted - 05/29/2014 : 11:18:41 The union can revoke membership. But not for negligence towards another member, for negligence towards the Union. Otherwise, I agree completely with Joshua's comments and it's exactly what I've been saying. The union certainly can and does fight harder for things they believe in but they can't say they won't fight. They HAVE to do at least the first step of the fight. They can't say no.

And to my buddy Slozo's point, you are 100% correct, the union doesn't do much to protect injured players. That is the point of the argument. THEY CAN"T!!!! Their sole and exclusive purpose is to represent the worker against the employer. Period. End of story.

If the injured player wanted to grieve against the employer for health and safety issues, they would and could. However, that would be against the EMPLOYER, not against the player.

And here's another little nugget that people may not understand: a union can not grieve without approval of the members. That means the union can do NOTHING without at least one worker asking them to do something.

Let's dumb this down: If I am a union worker on a construction site and some bonehead injured me by driving into me with a forklift, I can go to the union and say do something about it. They can then grieve against the employer for not providing proper training or provided proper supervision. They can not grieve against the bonehead who hit me. It's the company's job to manage the employees.

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 05/29/2014 : 09:51:43 I agree with the representations Beans has portrayed as a unions function in a world of Labor. But as usual, that is not the whole story. A union has the ability to remove a member, suspend a membership and can act in 1 of 2 fashions with regards to representing a member, which relate to the world of labor, not relating to the NHL. They can strongly fight on behalf of a member or the can represent a members complaint in a softer fashion. A union does not have to agree with its members representation, just present the case a union member makes, mediate and/or arbitrate on his behalf. However if a union disagrees with the union member, the union does not have to agressively stand behind its union member. In other words if the union representatives and its board agree's with a suspension which the offending member does not, they can present his case, but ultimately still side with the punishment. If they disagree with the suspension, they can choose to a fight the suspension more aggresively. Health and safety, in the world of Unions is paramount. A union would not fight against health and safety.

mandree888

Posted - 05/29/2014 : 07:59:52

quote:Originally posted by Alex116

I'm unclear of exactly what "help" you guys are expecting the PA to give to the "victims"?

Slozo, i was assuming you were talking about this "help" in a bit of a facetious way, meaning, "help" the victim(s) by getting rid of a rat like Cooke? Is that what you meant?

Mandree, you seem more on the issue of financial help or rehab/recovery? Is this what you meant?

I'm not the most knowledgable in regards to unions but what Beans wrote out seems to jive with the understanding i've had re their roles in disputes (which is kinda what this amounts to).

I am refering to any kind of help. wether be finacial(although these guys make mountains of money) rehab,recovery (typically covered by the team), or legal advice (this is what i was going after in the case of cooke vs barrie) I think the NHLPA asked barrie if he wanted to proceed with any internal union disiplineagainst cooke. wether or not Barrie said ya or nah to we may never know. eother way how can we assume that the NHL PA did nothing just because we (people outside the union) havent heard anything about it.

if it is just getting rid of cook i still agree that it is within the NHLPAs power to do so. But it depends on if they are getting money for him being part of the union (unions dues anyone) so they only way that they kick him out is if Cooke starts costing them more money than they are getting from him IMO

Alex116

Posted - 05/29/2014 : 07:45:40 I'm unclear of exactly what "help" you guys are expecting the PA to give to the "victims"?

Slozo, i was assuming you were talking about this "help" in a bit of a facetious way, meaning, "help" the victim(s) by getting rid of a rat like Cooke? Is that what you meant?

Mandree, you seem more on the issue of financial help or rehab/recovery? Is this what you meant?

I'm not the most knowledgable in regards to unions but what Beans wrote out seems to jive with the understanding i've had re their roles in disputes (which is kinda what this amounts to).

mandree888

Posted - 05/29/2014 : 06:46:00 ok fair enough slozo. Buts just because we cant fins anything doesn't mean they are doing nothing. it just means that nothing was reported about what they may be doing.

in this day in age the accused (or the bad guy as it were) always gets the media attention. the victim doesn't!

look at any murder case and it is the same thing nothing really importnant gets published by the media on the victim only the muderer.

for example. this case nothing has been reported by ANYONE about what is going on with barrie. Even though the avalanche most likely are doing something the NHLPA are propably helping out as well. How who knows because the media doesn;t care they will get more hits for their report about what happend to purpetrator?Cooke on the other han, well he is pretty much at this point a household name because of all the bad publicity he gets.Every avalanche fan boston fan sens fan just name a few HATE this guy with a passion because of the things he has done,

just because nothing is reported doesn;t mean nothing behiond the scenes is happening.to believe otherwise is being intentionally ingnorant IMO

The NHLPA legally have to help him. Now i have never been in a union i freely admit. But i have known many people who were. My dad for example was in a union for nigh on 20 years. and i learned a lot about unions in that time just by paying attention.if i am correct teh person that needs help must ask for it no?If barrie decides not to ask for why then would they just give it to him and pay up thousands of dollars on someone who by all accounts didn't even want the help?

I firmly believe that the NHLPA came up to barrie and said hey this sucks do you need us to represent you for something. and Barrie said no thats ok.

I agree the NHLPA should Kick out Cooke!!!! IMO it is within their rights to say you don;t have our members best interest at heart have a great life. contract terminiated. but they probably make money off him somehow still.

lets not forget unions are a business first and foremost. they will do whatever gets them the most money. If that means keeping Cooke they will do it.

Now i will defer to someone more knowledgeable about unions if i have made mistakes in how i believe they work. like i have said i have never been part of one.

thats enough of my rant i will answer any questions as well. to the best of my ability as well.

slozo

Posted - 05/29/2014 : 04:31:51

quote:Originally posted by mandree888

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Typical Slozo, the true definition of dogmatic.

Wonder why I left for so long? Because of the complete waste of time it is discussing anything on this site once Slozo gets involved. Never any proof to defend his point of view and negates any facts that contradict his opinions with personal slights. It's even worse when his equally unintelligent and ignorant minions jump in and egg him on for more.

Waste of time...

Sorry beans i dont understand this.....

From what i have read not once did Slozo disagree with you i am pretty sure all he was saying was that he felt the NHLPA should be proactivly helping out the injured player just as vigorously as the assistance.

If this makes him dogmatic so be it. I don't see it

(disclaimer: This is not a post to egg Slozo on.)

ok after re reading the thread at the begining he was.....but since then has only stated that he thinks it is the NHLPA position to help the injured play just as much (from what i got out of his posts)

To This i would say how do we know that they aren't? just because no one is reporting what They may or may not be doing for them doesn;t mean nothing is hapening.

We know they aren't doing it - it's a fact. Look into it. Look at the history of the big cases - the Moore vs Bertuzzi incident was one I pointed to, but there are dozens of others. Look into it, you will find zero representation from the NHLPA in regards to the injured player's rights.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!

mandree888

Posted - 05/27/2014 : 05:56:04

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Typical Slozo, the true definition of dogmatic.

Wonder why I left for so long? Because of the complete waste of time it is discussing anything on this site once Slozo gets involved. Never any proof to defend his point of view and negates any facts that contradict his opinions with personal slights. It's even worse when his equally unintelligent and ignorant minions jump in and egg him on for more.

Waste of time...

Sorry beans i dont understand this.....

From what i have read not once did Slozo disagree with you i am pretty sure all he was saying was that he felt the NHLPA should be proactivly helping out the injured player just as vigorously as the assistance.

If this makes him dogmatic so be it. I don't see it

(disclaimer: This is not a post to egg Slozo on.)

ok after re reading the thread at the begining he was.....but since then has only stated that he thinks it is the NHLPA position to help the injured play just as much (from what i got out of his posts)

To This i would say how do we know that they aren't? just because no one is reporting what They may or may not be doing for them doesn;t mean nothing is hapening.

Wonder why I left for so long? Because of the complete waste of time it is discussing anything on this site once Slozo gets involved. Never any proof to defend his point of view and negates any facts that contradict his opinions with personal slights. It's even worse when his equally unintelligent and ignorant minions jump in and egg him on for more.

Waste of time...

slozo

Posted - 05/26/2014 : 08:28:05

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

It's become irritating trying to explain the simple concept of a union to people who don't see to want to listen. For my last comment on a union I will leave you with a few very simple points that anyone can understand:

1 - The unions roles is to be the collective agent for the WORKERS in their relationship with the EMPLOYER. No union is the world works as an agent for WORKERS and their relationship with other WORKERS. For example, if there is completely useless, dangerous, and otherwise problematic employee at a manufacturing plant, the union will NEVER do anything about that person. In fact, it's against their fundamental responsibility to protect all workers to the best of their ability. It's up to the company to fire the worker, not the union. Ever.

2 - Even if there is a completely dangerous, useless, and otherwise problematic worker who gets fired, the union MUST show due diligence in protecting the workers rights. Normally, than will mean a grievance against the employer. If the employer denied the grievance, the union can then say they showed due diligence in filing the grievance but proceeding to arbitration would likely be unsuccessful. Bottom line, they can not say no if a worker wants to file a grievance or appeal an action by the employer. They have to minimally support the first step of the process

Philosophically you may have some valid points that the union should to more but they simply can't. It contradicts the union's purpose. The NHPLA can do nothing until the NHL does something and even when the NHL does something the NHLPA can not refuse their responsibility to represent the player in the appeal process.

Simple concept, seems really tough for some people to understand. This is from my more than 10 years in a union, including time as the shop steward, and my 10 more years as a manager of a unionized workforce. Not saying I am an expert, but I have at least a clue of what I'm talking about.

Yes, protecting ALL WORKER'S RIGHTS is, indeed, a simple concept. And I agree, it's baffling how some people still don't get it, even when they are pointing out the fallacies in their own argument!

You're classic, Beans. A beaut, as they say.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!

Beans15

Posted - 05/23/2014 : 09:55:32 It's become irritating trying to explain the simple concept of a union to people who don't see to want to listen. For my last comment on a union I will leave you with a few very simple points that anyone can understand:

1 - The unions roles is to be the collective agent for the WORKERS in their relationship with the EMPLOYER. No union is the world works as an agent for WORKERS and their relationship with other WORKERS. For example, if there is completely useless, dangerous, and otherwise problematic employee at a manufacturing plant, the union will NEVER do anything about that person. In fact, it's against their fundamental responsibility to protect all workers to the best of their ability. It's up to the company to fire the worker, not the union. Ever.

2 - Even if there is a completely dangerous, useless, and otherwise problematic worker who gets fired, the union MUST show due diligence in protecting the workers rights. Normally, than will mean a grievance against the employer. If the employer denied the grievance, the union can then say they showed due diligence in filing the grievance but proceeding to arbitration would likely be unsuccessful. Bottom line, they can not say no if a worker wants to file a grievance or appeal an action by the employer. They have to minimally support the first step of the process

Philosophically you may have some valid points that the union should to more but they simply can't. It contradicts the union's purpose. The NHPLA can do nothing until the NHL does something and even when the NHL does something the NHLPA can not refuse their responsibility to represent the player in the appeal process.

Simple concept, seems really tough for some people to understand. This is from my more than 10 years in a union, including time as the shop steward, and my 10 more years as a manager of a unionized workforce. Not saying I am an expert, but I have at least a clue of what I'm talking about.

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 05/15/2014 : 10:02:12 100% totally agree and thats what I was trying to say. Why wouldn't the NHLPA on behalf of the other 99.9% of its other members, work with the NHL to remove players who are dangerous to its other members. Putting a permanent black eye on Cooke, so he never reaches a status other than repeat offender and encouraging a suspension which would do his career harm, seems reasonable to me. He has done the same to the careers of multiple other NHLPA members, who have way way way more skills than he does. I dont know much about Barrie, but why is it that these "accidents" always happen to star players when Cooke is the perpetrator. BTW Cooke only reach a status other than repeat offender due to a technicality not and actuality. Ask Karlsson/Melnick, how he feels about Cooke being incidentfree for 3 years. Many feel that accident was not an accident and should have been a suspendable offense.

quote:Originally posted by slozo

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

That lack of understand the fundamentals of a players union is supremely clouding the opinions of some people. The answer to the question of why it's the players union to job to fight for dirty players or why the NHLPA can't do more about his is the same reason that the mostly guilty of guilty criminals still receive due process through the courts.

The answer is simple and undeniable:

It's the law.

I'm dumbfounded and confused as to why this is so hard to comprehend? A union MUST, at the request of a member, show due diligence in defending member rights. Had Cooke wanted to the PA couldn't say no to an appeal. They say no, Cooke could then sue the union and if he won, the union would lose it's certification.

I'm not making this stuff up. This isn't an opinion.

I see, I must be one of those dummies, ignorant as a blind goat. Here I am asking why the NHLPA isn't defending BOTH members, and you are here giving me crap that they must defend the one member!

I never said don't defend Cooke . . . I said DEFEND THE INJURED PARTY JUST AS MUCH AS THE A-HOLE WHO CAUSED THE INJURY.

Can you just tell me, where is this law that states that the NHLPA should give only 100% of their combined resources and effort to the defence of the perpetrator/accused, and nearly 0% to the victim?

Show me that law, please . . . I'm dumbfounded, confused and befuddled. After all - in your own words - shouldn't this apply to Tyson Barrie as well? "A union MUST, at the request of a member, show due diligence in defending member rights."

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!

slozo

Posted - 05/15/2014 : 07:06:00

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

That lack of understand the fundamentals of a players union is supremely clouding the opinions of some people. The answer to the question of why it's the players union to job to fight for dirty players or why the NHLPA can't do more about his is the same reason that the mostly guilty of guilty criminals still receive due process through the courts.

The answer is simple and undeniable:

It's the law.

I'm dumbfounded and confused as to why this is so hard to comprehend? A union MUST, at the request of a member, show due diligence in defending member rights. Had Cooke wanted to the PA couldn't say no to an appeal. They say no, Cooke could then sue the union and if he won, the union would lose it's certification.

I'm not making this stuff up. This isn't an opinion.

I see, I must be one of those dummies, ignorant as a blind goat. Here I am asking why the NHLPA isn't defending BOTH members, and you are here giving me crap that they must defend the one member!

I never said don't defend Cooke . . . I said DEFEND THE INJURED PARTY JUST AS MUCH AS THE A-HOLE WHO CAUSED THE INJURY.

Can you just tell me, where is this law that states that the NHLPA should give only 100% of their combined resources and effort to the defence of the perpetrator/accused, and nearly 0% to the victim?

Show me that law, please . . . I'm dumbfounded, confused and befuddled. After all - in your own words - shouldn't this apply to Tyson Barrie as well? "A union MUST, at the request of a member, show due diligence in defending member rights."

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!

Alex116

Posted - 05/14/2014 : 23:59:55

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

That lack of understand the fundamentals of a players union is supremely clouding the opinions of some people. The answer to the question of why it's the players union to job to fight for dirty players or why the NHLPA can't do more about his is the same reason that the mostly guilty of guilty criminals still receive due process through the courts.

The answer is simple and undeniable:

It's the law.

I'm dumbfounded and confused as to why this is so hard to comprehend? A union MUST, at the request of a member, show due diligence in defending member rights. Had Cooke wanted to the PA couldn't say no to an appeal. They say no, Cooke could then sue the union and if he won, the union would lose it's certification.

I'm not making this stuff up. This isn't an opinion.

Well said Beans, and I can't understand how some people are confused by this, anyone with any understanding of a "union" should def NOT be confused!!!

This keeps coming back to the point of "they should have tried to give a longer suspension....". THAT, is not the way to make changes to a deal that a union has signed off on! And I'd like to believe, the NHLPA knows this!!!

Beans15

Posted - 05/14/2014 : 20:14:12 That lack of understand the fundamentals of a players union is supremely clouding the opinions of some people. The answer to the question of why it's the players union to job to fight for dirty players or why the NHLPA can't do more about his is the same reason that the mostly guilty of guilty criminals still receive due process through the courts.

The answer is simple and undeniable:

It's the law.

I'm dumbfounded and confused as to why this is so hard to comprehend? A union MUST, at the request of a member, show due diligence in defending member rights. Had Cooke wanted to the PA couldn't say no to an appeal. They say no, Cooke could then sue the union and if he won, the union would lose it's certification.

I'm not making this stuff up. This isn't an opinion.

slozo

Posted - 05/13/2014 : 10:45:18

quote:Originally posted by markliso

that is unions in a nutshell. both have to be protected, regardless if one was a douche and broke some guys back.

they had an obligation to ensure bertuzzi was protected and not completely kicked out and at the same time, protect the victim...

anyway, on topic, i agree with Crock in the original post. Cooke is a waste of a player... and it is unfortunate that they can't do more about him.

The point I am making is that they COULD have done more about him . . . they chose not to. They should have had Barrie's best interests at heart here, AND the rest of the league's, when considering this punishment. If going by that standard, they should have thrown the book at Cooke and gone for the throat, making an entirely new precedent.

They didn't protect Barrie's interests . . . just like they didn't protect Moore's interests . . . just like they didn't protect the dozens and dozens of other victim's interests.

The title of this thread should read, the NHLPA Sucks.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!

markliso

Posted - 05/13/2014 : 04:47:37 that is unions in a nutshell. both have to be protected, regardless if one was a douche and broke some guys back.

they had an obligation to ensure bertuzzi was protected and not completely kicked out and at the same time, protect the victim...

anyway, on topic, i agree with Crock in the original post. Cooke is a waste of a player... and it is unfortunate that they can't do more about him.

slozo

Posted - 05/09/2014 : 06:17:56

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

Question, why is it the players unions job to fight for a repeatedly dirty player, versus the players safety? Tell me how it best serves the union to reduce the penalty against a repeat offender in real life such as Cooke, who is not considered a repeat offender because of some technicality. In this arguement I agree with Crock and Slozo. This is the type of player who should be labeled as a dangerous offender (by the union and NHL board) and never have the repeat offender status removed.

It's one of the head-scratchers of the Player's Union, that is for sure - it's a very salient point, which has been brought up by many a hockey commentator on radio and in print, but is rarely approached on TV.

The bottom line is - and if you want the most crass, horrible example of this, review the Bertuzzi/Moore incident from only the NHLPA standpoint - the VICTIM is ignored and marginalised; and the PERPETRATOR/OFFENDER is well defended. Both are supposedly represented by the same union, but one gets the shaft, the other gets more than enough help.

And you hit the nail on the head with your point on how it's completely counter-productive to actual player safety.

But that's hockey, and the hockey people who run it. Stubborn, old-world views and pentalities pervade, and traditionally, it has been the slowest major sport to change its stance on anything.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 05/08/2014 : 17:26:13 Question, why is it the players unions job to fight for a repeatedly dirty player, versus the players safety? Tell me how it best serves the union to reduce the penalty against a repeat offender in real life such as Cooke, who is not considered a repeat offender because of some technicality. In this arguement I agree with Crock and Slozo. This is the type of player who should be labeled as a dangerous offender (by the union and NHL board) and never have the repeat offender status removed.

Alex116

Posted - 05/07/2014 : 17:30:11

quote:Originally posted by slozoIncorrect - the NHL, as pointed out, already went ABOVE AND BEYOND (slightly) the established standard for first time offenders. This is a fact. It went uncontested by the NHLPA, no contention by them. This is a fact.

What is also a fact is that we have repeated over and over again that the NHL SHOULD have gone WAY MORE above the established norm, as not only was this - a significant, intent to injure move- a foul on a key/important player- an incident in the playoffs

BUT, the topper was, it was a "first time offender" who was, in fact, the worst offender of all-time, the dirtiest snakiest snake of them all, that was currently an active player.

I keep repeating it, over and over again . . . but you guys are just too stubborn/blind to see it. I'm sorry, but at this point, it's just plain annoying to have t repeat this.All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!

Slozo, the problem here is, the part you guys "keep repeating, over and over again", is an opinion you have. YOUR opinion (and that of some others) is that the league should have given him some sort of ridiculous suspension and then let the PA appeal it and go from there. Worst case in your mind is that Cooke got the exact same suspension he rec'd BUT the league at least brings notice that they want changes. Correct? Please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong. IF i'm correct, great, thank you for your opinion, we do in fact "get it". We just don't agree with it, or at least, i don't. IMO, it'd be a frivolous waste of everyone's time. As i've already stated, the league blew it by signing an agreement that is coming back to haunt them, assuming they really do want to get these hits out of the game. They need to revisit this agreement, be it when it expires, or better yet if possible, NOW as a special case, and ammend it so that the league has the power to suspend a guy like Cooke appropriately.

I still get the feeling that some of you arguing for this HUGE suspension still think we are on Cooke's side, thinking that he got a deserved suspsension, and for me and most of the others, that's not the case. We're just defending the way the league handled this case under the current agreement!!!

Crock.....like it or not, Cooke did in fact change his game and clean up his act, to some degree. First off, and i've said it before, the Karlsson injury was (IMO) 100% accidental. NO WAY you'll ever convince me otherwise. The fact that it's happened so infrequently before actually supports the arguement that it was in fact an accident!

The lockout is a good point however. If it's "18 months clean" and you're a first time offender again, the lockout could have def worked in Cooke's favour. Perhaps they should have set it at a specific number of games played? I don't know the details on it, but if Cooke were injured for a full year of that 18 months, does that still qualify as part of the 18 months? Regardless, that's a whole different topic for discussion.

As for Savard, yes, i do think Cooke knew that the hit he was delivering was both dangerous AND unpunishable to some degree. It's yet another topic all together to discuss why those hits weren't punished in the past, something i won't do here, but it did at least lead them to make changes so that TODAY, those hits are in fact punishable! Keep in mind though, that's the "old Cooke". He's not done that sort of thing in a couple of years, qualifying himself for "first timer" status again, like it or not.

Lastly, and i repeat myself yet again, i agree that Cooke deserved a longer suspension than he rec'd. HOWEVER, i think the league's hands were tied due to the current agreement in place, and they handled this as well as they could have in following the rules in place.

OILINONTARIO

Posted - 05/07/2014 : 15:31:25

quote:Originally posted by slozo.

This was an exceptional case, for literally the most prolific and storied "rat" of our time since Sean Avery.

Speaking of Avery, wasn't it just a few years ago that the league implemented a rule change, mid-playoff, to counter a mildly amusing nuisance employed by said "rat"?

The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2015.

slozo

Posted - 05/07/2014 : 08:06:27

quote:Originally posted by mandree888

ok the Karlsonn thing WAS an accident! do you know how accurate you would have to be to bring your foot down at that angel to prposly sever the achellies tendon? you would have to practice that move over and over and over. i highly doubt any one EVEN cooke would practice cutting someone's heel. this is the only freak accident i can say cooke had though as everything esle i belive was his lan to injure a key player and for that i feel he should be held accountable.

I agree that they missed an opportunity to majorly bump up the punishment but in the end they did bump it up if only by a bit.

Crock i understand i want Cook out of the game as well. But the CBA is the las essentially. the NHL can not LEGEALLY go against it.

as for him doing it again? you are most likely correct i just hope it is sooner rather than later else he gets this stupid first time offender sh!t again. (not that i want someone to get hurt)

Incorrect - the NHL, as pointed out, already went ABOVE AND BEYOND (slightly) the established standard for first time offenders. This is a fact. It went uncontested by the NHLPA, no contention by them. This is a fact.

What is also a fact is that we have repeated over and over again that the NHL SHOULD have gone WAY MORE above the established norm, as not only was this - a significant, intent to injure move- a foul on a key/important player- an incident in the playoffs

BUT, the topper was, it was a "first time offender" who was, in fact, the worst offender of all-time, the dirtiest snakiest snake of them all, that was currently an active player.

I keep repeating it, over and over again . . . but you guys are just too stubborn/blind to see it. I'm sorry, but at this point, it's just plain annoying to have t repeat this.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!

mandree888

Posted - 05/07/2014 : 05:54:01 ok the Karlsonn thing WAS an accident! do you know how accurate you would have to be to bring your foot down at that angel to prposly sever the achellies tendon? you would have to practice that move over and over and over. i highly doubt any one EVEN cooke would practice cutting someone's heel. this is the only freak accident i can say cooke had though as everything esle i belive was his lan to injure a key player and for that i feel he should be held accountable.

I agree that they missed an opportunity to majorly bump up the punishment but in the end they did bump it up if only by a bit.

Crock i understand i want Cook out of the game as well. But the CBA is the las essentially. the NHL can not LEGEALLY go against it.

as for him doing it again? you are most likely correct i just hope it is sooner rather than later else he gets this stupid first time offender sh!t again. (not that i want someone to get hurt)

Like, WHAT!?!? Does Matt Cooke have like a team of Political Spinners or something working for him? Literally, the DAY he came back from suspension in 2013, CBC was saying, "well, he's changed up his game, and congratulations..."

WHAT!? He "changed" his game from when... When there was a lock-out?? How could anyone know that he had "changed" his game? And why does EVERYONE keep saying it like they are a robot or something. Have you watched him play? He's still totally dirty. He still throws elbows in the corners. He's "changed"? What? It's totally bizarre.

And you know what else bothers me? When Matt Cooke hit Marc Savard, everyone said, "well, we can't punish him for that hit; because that kind of hit isn't punishable...".

Here's a thought: Do you think that maybe Matt Cooke knew that? I'm just asking the question. Because he's tried to injure Star Players on competing teams before.

Is it impossible, that Matt Cooke knew that he was under the radar, and tried to come up with a "clever" way to injure another player without getting into too much trouble?

It worked for Marc Savard, that's for sure. Under the current agreement - and considering at THAT time he WAS a repeat offender - he would have gotten 25 games for that hit. Easy. Instead, he got away with it.

What about Erik Karlsson? Everyone says it's a "mystery". A "freak accident". If you put a fox in a hen house, and he eats all of the hens, was it a "freak accident"? You put Erik Karlsson - the Star Defenceman from a competing team - in the corner with Matt Cooke. And... That's what happened. Erik Karlsson has gone into the corner thousands of times in his life. Matt Cooke has gone into the corner thousands of times in his life. NHL players have gone into the corner together thousands, upon thousands, of times in their lives. And they NEVER come out with severed Achilles Tendons. Never.

(Alex pointed out a "possible" comparison with Zach Kassian... Which is actually ironic. Because if you would like to compare Matt Cooke to Zach Kassian, go ahead. Great company, that.)

I think it's possible that Matt Cooke KNEW what he had to do. He had to injure Marc Savard, Erik Karlsson, Tyson Barrie. He had to make it look like an accident. He found the right tonic for Savard (glancing headshot - not punishable). And for Karlsson (severing an Achilles Tendon - a "freak accident"). And, he knew that the current CBA would consider him a "first-time offender" when considering Barrie; and would therefore get off easily.

He "changed" his game. Right. He just waited until a Playoff Series to injure the EXACT player that would tilt the Series in the Wild's favour. Right. He "changed" his game. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?

...And guess what? It worked. The Wild won the Series. Player of the Series for the Wild? Matt Cooke. Bar none. Tyson Barrie in the lineup, the Avs win that Series.

Matt Cooke hasn't changed. He's just come up with better and more creative ways to injure players while using a legal loophole to mitigate his punishment.

How else could you POSSIBLY explain that? How many "freak accidents" do you want??

Alex116

Posted - 05/05/2014 : 14:25:20

quote:Originally posted by slozoWhat YOU and BEANS don't get is what Crock and myself keep repeating . . . the league should have at the very least ATTEMPTED to give a bigger suspension, making this an "exceptional case".

ATTEMPTED? They DID! They simply made it something reasonable. Do you not think for a second that throwing a 25 game suspension at this "first time offender" would have worked? I GET IT, they could have tried, gone through the appeal process, etc, and likely ended up with the same 7 gamer he has today. What purpose would this serve??? A note to the PA that they want to / plan to pursue a change to the agreement? I'm pretty sure they can do that with a simple discussion, be it in writing or by phone, rather than a long, drawn out appeal during the SCP's.

quote:Originally posted by slozo

You actually help make our argument, as you point out that the league already went above what should have been a first timer suspension. There should be a pregnant pause there, and then the question . . . so there wasn't an appeal by the NHLPA after that?

Nope. It was crickets.

So what does that tell you - that there is more leeway to be had, before an appeal would be instigated? Are we to assume that the NHL magically got the exact number just before a successful appeal would have gotten?

I sure wouldn't assume that.

No, in fact it tells me that Matt Cooke / the Minnesota Wild, realized:1. That although it was a longer suspension than the comparables, that it was reasonable considering his past 2. That he's extremely lucky to be considered a first timer in the suspension processand 3. That drawing more attention to what's a reasonable and fair suspension could draw only negativity towards Cooke and the Wild organization.

quote:Originally posted by slozo

So again, I'll say it slowly:The NHL failed here, because they didn't try to really push the envelope to the greatest extent possible, EVEN IF IT WOULD HAVE ENDED UP BEING CONTESTED SUCCESSFULLY.

This was an exceptional case, for literally the most prolific and storied "rat" of our time since Sean Avery. And a very significant player IN THE PLAYOFFS was injured, and it had a significant impact. An EXTREMELY good case to set a brand new precedent in exceptional cases like this was right there.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!

That's your opinion, and i respect that. My opinion is that the NHL failed not "here" (Cooke's suspension), but rather the day they agreed to consider a guy like him a first time offender WITHOUT any sort of clause whatsoever.

IMO, there should always be a history tagged to such a dirty player and it should come out at ANY point in the future if the guilty party is invovled in an illegal hit. It's great and all that Cooke avoided penatlies and changed his game, but when an illegal hit occurs, his history should always be considered. If they want to consider the length of time he's been a "saint" and reduce his suspension somewhat, fine, but his history should always be there working against him at a time like this.

CrockOShight

Posted - 05/05/2014 : 12:55:42 Slozo and Mandree are my lawyers, and yes, they represent me. Well said boys!! And a very good point made by Slozo here - they "could have" appealed. But they didn't. What does that say?? ("Maybe we got away with one here boys...")

I LOVE that Don Cherry won't let this one sit either. He gets props from me for that.

Anyway, Chicago is going to make Minnesota a minor footnote into an otherwise controversial Playoff Season. It is ironic that a team with Seabrooke and Keith - who themselves are not the cleanest of players - end up being the "good guys" here by beating down the loathable Matt Cooke poisoned Minnesota Wild. Ah, hockey.

mandree888

Posted - 05/05/2014 : 12:40:57 as much as i understand where beans and alex are coming from i fully agree with slozo.

I can not find anywhere in the current CBA that indicates what the length of a suspension can be. For that reason i feel the NHL blew it! If the Cooke wanted to appeal it fine let him. that is his right. but honestly i think it would have gone the same route as the shawn thorton appeal it would have went to betman he would say you really are nucking futs arent you? and then nothing would have happend.

yes the NHLPA must defend him but i think if the NHL said we are craking down to take this out of the agme and setting a higher amount of games to suspend, then there isn;t anyting the NHLPA could do. as i beilieve it is in the NHL's rights to assign the number of games.

slozo

Posted - 05/05/2014 : 07:14:03

quote:Originally posted by Alex116

Crock...I love the "terrorism" comparison in your post. I know it's ironic that it's humorous, while you are being absolutely serious, but the humor element was well played!

Having said that, I think we can agree here, that it's the agreement between the NHL and the PA that is the problem. I agree that Matt Cooke "technically" isn't a first time offender, but unfortunately, he's labelled as such in the agreement. I also understand why the NHL has this "be clean for 18 months...." clause in the agreement. BUT, I will say, a multiple time offender such as Cooke, should be viewed differently. That is my opinion, unfortunately it's nothing to do with the current agreement that Quintal MUST follow. Also, it's not robotic, nor is the player safety commissioner. He doesn't have to give the exact same penalty to each guy, as seen here where Cooke got 7 PLAYOFF games to others, who are deemed similar, getting just 5 or less regular season games! Like it or not, Cooke was punished harsher than others, just not the lifetime ban you'd hoped for.

As for the Savard blindside headshot, it's true that hits like that weren't punishable the way they are today. That too is extremely unfortunate, but please keep in mind that it's hits like that that paved the way to where we are today with regards to headshots. Yes, still not perfect, but far and away better than a few years back!

So, before you sit anxiously awaiting Cooke's next heinous act, please realize, "I told you so" won't make a difference. He is due back i believe for game 5 of the Wild / Hawks series (if it goes that far?), and if he comes onto the ice and blatantly elbows Jonathan Toews into next week, please save us the "i told you so", as none of us are arguing that! It is my hope, and I'm sure Beans and Mandree would agree, that the league and PA can get together and amend the "first time offender" clause whereby guys like Cooke who are multiple time repeat offenders, can ALWAYS be looked upon like that!

What YOU and BEANS don't get is what Crock and myself keep repeating . . . the league should have at the very least ATTEMPTED to give a bigger suspension, making this an "exceptional case".

You actually help make our argument, as you point out that the league already went above what should have been a first timer suspension. There should be a pregnant pause there, and then the question . . . so there wasn't an appeal by the NHLPA after that?

Nope. It was crickets.

So what does that tell you - that there is more leeway to be had, before an appeal would be instigated? Are we to assume that the NHL magically got the exact number just before a successful appeal would have gotten?

I sure wouldn't assume that.

So again, I'll say it slowly:The NHL failed here, because they didn't try to really push the envelope to the greatest extent possible, EVEN IF IT WOULD HAVE ENDED UP BEING CONTESTED SUCCESSFULLY.

This was an exceptional case, for literally the most prolific and storied "rat" of our time since Sean Avery. And a very significant player IN THE PLAYOFFS was injured, and it had a significant impact. An EXTREMELY good case to set a brand new precedent in exceptional cases like this was right there.

All hail Canada`s team the Montreal Canadiens our hope for a Stanley Cup to come home to Canada is 2014! Keep Calm and Carey on!